Naseem Ahmed Bajwa, Nidhi Kumar Sharma and Azfar Naseem Bajwa

• Application 10216-2009
• Hearing 10 February 2010
• Reasons 10 June 2010

The SDT ordered that the first respondent (registered as a foreign lawyer in 1999), of A Bajwa & Co, 39 Gowers Walk, London E1 8BS, should pay a fine of £2,000; that the second respondent (admitted 2000), of N Sharma & Co, 50 Crestwood Way, Hounslow, Middlesex TW4 5EQ, should pay a fine of £750; and that the third respondent (admitted 2005), of A Bajwa & Co, 39 Gowers Walk, London E1 8BS, should pay a fine of £2,000.

The respondents had entered into a sham agreement pursuant to which the second respondent had been held out as a partner and principal of the firm of A Bajwa & Co, when that firm was in reality controlled by the third respondent. Furthermore, the first and second respondents had permitted the firm’s bank accounts to be held and controlled by a non-solicitor, namely the third respondent; and the second respondent had agreed to share professional fees with the third respondent, in breach of rule 7 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990. The SDT accepted that while there had been a sham partnership in the technical sense, the respondents had not intended to mislead anyone, and that there had been no adverse consequences to clients as a result. However, the SDT was mindful that the third respondent was a qualified barrister, and was of the view that while he might not have checked the appropriate rules properly for compliance, he should have done so. Furthermore, the first respondent was also a lawyer with considerable experience, and was the senior partner of the firm and so had responsibility for ensuring that the firm complied with the relevant rules and regulations. The second respondent had also been qualified for some time, and while the SDT accepted that she had worked on many files and had agreed to supervise the firm for a fixed salary, it was clear that control of the firm had remained with a person who was not a solicitor. That was in clear contravention of the regulations, which were there to protect clients and the reputation of the profession. As a result of the respondents’ conduct, there had been a risk, however insubstantial, to the good reputation of the profession, and that was a serious matter.

The first and third respondents were ordered to pay costs of £7,500, on the basis of joint and several liability, and the second respondent was ordered to pay costs of £1,500.